Jump to content

Srecko Sostar

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Srecko Sostar -
Srecko Sostar -
52
791

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations,+ baptizing them+ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, - Mat 28:19 nwt

WT Society have changed few times, in last 140 years, baptismal questions.

Also they stopped to respect, obey Jesus command quoted above. At some moment (perhaps about 1970's , please correct this guessing if it is wrong) JW person who immersing new member into water doing that silently. They do not repeat this Jesus words while baptizing "disciples". 

What do you think about this?  Whether the absence of spoken words (in the name of ....) is the reason why such baptism would be considered invalid? Or, that is not matter?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the last major change was in 1985.

Any Baptisms before that you did not swear legal fealty to the Organization.

After 1985, having subordinated yourself to the Corporation, you had no legal standing to sue them in Court if they screwed up your life.

I do not think this matters to Jehovah, because this is NEVER mentioned before you stand up and say "YES" moments before you are baptized, and the language is couched in such language as to be deliberately misleading in intent, if not actually stated.

They take advantage of the passion and happiness of the moment to "microchip" you for future control, but Jehovah knows a person's heart, and He also understands trickery, and hypnosis.

Currently, there is NO ONE on Earth who can fire the Governing Body .... and they know it!

No matter what they do .... the money just keeps rolling in.

day, after day, after day.

... even on the Weekends.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the first century Christians baptized people in Jesus' name due to the fact that Christians were to take up the teachings of the Christ concerning God? I agree with the church as is with our church fathers of old concerning what Matthew 28:19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this yesterday.

Baptismal questions from ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMINDERS May 2019 (section FOR THE ELDERS ONLY).

3. Baptism Questions: The two baptism questions that are reviewed with candidates at the time of their concluding discussion with the elders and that are included at the end of each baptism talk outline have been changed as follows:
(1) “Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ?”
(2) “Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?”
The new questions will be used starting with the baptism talks at assemblies and conventions beginning the week of May 13, 2019. Elders should update the two questions on page 209 in their copies of Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will.
Old questions:  

Baptismal questions from the Watchtower 1985 Jun 1 p.30:

(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?
 
... accepted his way of salvation  is also omitted
Well it seems how organization is not spirit-directed any more :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What do you think about this?  Whether the absence of spoken words (in the name of ....) is the reason why such baptism would be considered invalid? Or, that is not matter?  

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. 

If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication.

Yes, i recall period of time when baptizer said those words, .. in the name of.... , to candidate in the moments, seconds before immersing him/her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

baptizer said those words

Up to the individual. Neither required nor paticularly appropriate. We can all speak in our hearts and be heard .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.

Thanks for the insight.  I never thought of it that way.

The Baptism is an outward symbol of a dedication ALREADY MADE IN IT'S TOTALITY.

Whatever you dedicated to Jehovah God is between you and God, alone ... and what the GB has done is try an "control the narrative", and add to that.

I wonder what would happen if after Baptism at an Assembly, where you stood up with many baptismal candidates that said "YES", and you did not affirm the questions asked you.  I doubt they examine the videos to make sure you did, or have someone watch to see if you did, taking notes.  Then, after perhaps several years of faithful life, casually mention that your immersion was as public as you needed, and that you never said "Yes" like all the others did.

What you had resolved in your heart to do was sufficient, and nothing needed to be added.

It's obvious that you were not there to soap up and bathe.

Or ... let's say you were on a camping trip beside a lake, and you turned to your Bible Teacher and said "What's to prevent me from being baptized ..." quoting the Ethiopian Eunuch, and you both went down to the lake, and your teacher baptized you.

As far as I know, it only takes ONE other person present to be a public expression of your dedication, and it would in actual fact be quite valid.

That brings up the next consideration .....

When you got back to your home congregations, relating the events of the camping trip, how much crap would you have to put up with from the Elders ... or would it be none at all?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember my ex-wife telling me about a Brother from the United States who was baptized in Peru, and later married a local Sister. A fine Brother in every way, so I hear, but he had forgotten that years before,, in the United States, he was still married.

He was believed by the Peruvian Elders, and the only solution they could find was to "Unbaptize" him by declaring his baptism null and void.  It was either that, or disfellowship him.

Having worked on a Bethel construction project down there, I found that story entirely believable, as they are a much simpler people in many respects.

I am inclined to believe that, all things considered,  what the Elders did was the correct thing to do ... under very odd circumstances.

Of course, I am only guessing.

... and, I am many thousands of miles away, and now about a quarter-century away, and I don't give a hoot, and try not to pollute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

He was believed by the Peruvian Elders, and the only solution they could find was to "Unbaptize" him by declaring his baptism null and void.  It was either that, or disfellowship him.

 

6 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. 

If you don't mind for connecting this two comments.

"Baptism" of this man is done because he want to "dedicate" (guess) himself to God - spiritually , not to WT Society

But - factually, he made sort of "Contract, in corporative language, with WT Society through WT Representative who immersed him in water. 

Well, if God accepted his dedication, despite fact he has two wife's (perhaps he was repentant all the time, but he chooses second wife) than his baptism, spiritually is valid. But second (hidden) part of his "dedication" - to WT Society -  is in question, and that sort of "dedication" has been possible to delete in Administrative manner, because he also was hiding some important information.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Srecko Sostar
      In the OT, there is a direct command, “Thou shalt not kill (murder)!” This command should contain God's view of human life, which emphasizes that life is holy, sacred before God, but also that people must have the same feeling about the lives of other people around them.
      By reading the Bible, which describes the events before and after the occurrence of this commandment, we can see that this commandment has no absolute power. Within the same set of legal provisions, there are other commandments that were binding on the Israelites, too. For example, commands like; "Don't steal, don't lie, don't commit fornication ...". These commandments should never have been ignored or mitigated by some extraordinary circumstances.
      The specificity of this commandment, "You shall not kill," is evident in the fact that it was not of valid, obligation for all men and for all circumstances. Powerful individuals in Israel sometimes making their own decisions to go on military campaigns against others (Israelis and non-Israelis) The law also justified killing for revenge.
      In some other places, God commands the death penalty against an individual. Also, the Bible describes that God instituted great actions that justified killing of other people. These were most often military actions aimed at killing soldiers of the enemy army, but also their families. The killings of these other tribes and people were justified on the basis of several facts: 1) they were not Israelis  2) they lived in territory that the Israel nation were to conquer for themselves, 3) they belonged to other religions.
      The execution of the death penalty for a crime still exists today in some societies and legal systems. Obviously, the death penalty decision is based on balance. The one who killed must be killed. But from some other biblical examples we have seen that murder is not the only crime punishable by death. The disobedient child was also sentenced to death. Different religious affiliations or different religious beliefs also led to the death penalty. Adultery was punished by death.
      From what we have described so far, we can see how the command, "shall not kill," had a stretched meaning. It is therefore necessary to look at religious practices that are not new but may draw some parallels in symbolism and meaning. As you may already guessed, it is about an act of symbolic "killing" that is carried out in such a way to exclude (disfellowship) another person from a particular social (religious) group in a specific way - by ignoring aka shunning. Shunning (this is about JW organization in particular) can be made because of two conclusions.
      The first conclusion is reached by an individual JW member who believes that another member of the congregation has wronged/sinned against the Bible and its principles to the extent that he / she personally presents a spiritual anomaly (in the form of a spiritual illness or threat) and decides to "label" particular person as inappropriate for him to have socializing contacts. He seeks to avoid contact and minimize any literal and spiritual communion.
      In second conclusion, the conviction of the inappropriateness of a member is made by the body of the elders. The judgment may be based on the morally inappropriate behavior of an individual member, or it may be that an individual no longer agrees with the ideological and organizational structure or with the theological solutions of the organization what made him/her as "hostile element".
      This is when a person is removed from congregational members aka "spiritually killed" in such a way to excommunicate (dfd) them (he,she) from the community and impose a ban on almost every contact with the dfd person. The ban has few variations and interpretations of how the shunning should be carried out. But the very core of such a demand not to contact the excluded person is evident from the widespread practice that JW members have consistently implemented - the excluded (dfd) is not even greeted with the simplest “Good afternoon” greeting (hallo) on the street.
      JW's want to be peaceful people who go to jail in some countries because not want even to carry weapon in mandatory military service. They don't want take self-defense courses even for protect themselves when attacked. But they are motivated to be active in using spiritual weapons and warfare against ex members who are in a disagreement with doctrinal issues. And "killing" them with shunning.  
      What are your thoughts? 
       
       
       
    • By Srecko Sostar
      JW's preach about Kingdom, Armageddon, and Eternal Life. This eternal life shall be in the future, after the last ordeal/exam at the end of the Kingdom of Christ, that is, at the end of 1000 years of that Kingdom.
      The concept of eternity and therefore of eternal life for man is great desire of all people. No one wants to die, unless he is very old and infirm or severely ill or in great suffering. But many people, even under such circumstances, have desire to survive and live. 
       
      JWs are not sure, will they get eternal life. But they have great hope for it, if they remain faithful to God, as they say.
      Because of such stand, it is interesting to note the famous words written in the Bible. "And this is an eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - Mat 17
      This is where we meet the equalization of terms. Knowing God and Jesus = Eternal Life. Conversely, eternal life = the knowledge of God and Jesus.

      What JW's doing to get knowledge of God (and eternal life as result)? They read the Bible, they read WT publications, they listen to lectures, going preaching ..etc. The program for getting to know God and Jesus consists of, for the newcomers, in the Bible study system, attending meetings, preaching, and baptism. Consecration and baptism should mean that these new members have had by then, to that moment (cca 6 months  or 1 year) came to know God and Jesus enough to give their lives to Them .... and to have hope for future eternal life.
      Further question applies to both, newly baptized and those who have been "in the knowledge of God and Jesus" for decades. Do you have eternal life? Do you have it now? 
      JW's are very sure how they know the truth and Them, now.  What is the truth? To know Them. Jesus also said: I am The Way, The Truth and The Life. What Life? Eternal Life or some other Life? As result of what JW's know, we should, supposedly, conclude how JW's have: The way, the truth and the eternal life, because of how this facts are presented by them, about knowledge they have. 

      JW's will say how they will get it (eternal life), after the end of 1000th year Kingdom. But Jesus said how eternal life IS knowing Them. When?.... when you/they will know Them? In 1 century, after every Jesus' lessons and speech? Or after teaching that people received by Apostles who had been "inspired"? Or after people have been educated by Russell' publications, and get to know Them in such way? Or through preaching methods incorporated by JW organization?  
      Well, if JW's say how they will get eternal life in the future, that would mean how they don't know God and Jesus today. Jesus spoke about different logic: To know Them means you have eternal life. Do you know Them now? If you say, Yes, this would mean you have eternal life now. 
      But i see another issue here, too. God (and Jesus) living from eternity to eternity. In that sense, all what is connected about knowing Them is outside life span of every human. Possibility to know God and Jesus is impossible to human, because we are not eternal. Even with future aspect that some of us will live forever, it is not enough time to be in position to collect (with mind and heart) all what is possible to know about Them. In our position today, as people who lives 70-90 years, it is also impossible to know Them in such short period.
      We coming to these questions too:
      About what knowledge (in quality and quantity) Jesus spoke?
      About what eternal life (when and what sort of life....You will be in paradise with me, today, or after 1914, or after Kingdom ends... etc.) Jesus spoke? 
      ... or you can suggest some other questions too :))
    • By Srecko Sostar
      The WT Society interprets that JW elders have the right not to disclose secrets to the police and to other government agencies regarding child abuse when members of the organization give them information, whether they are victims or perpetrators.
      In this appeal, WT lawyers defend this right by invoking the Catholic Church and their clergy. In fact, although the WT Society and JWorg claim to have no priestly class as the Catholic Church, they do want the same privileges for their elders, before the bodies of the law, as Catholic priests do.
      What is the doctrine in the Catholic Church regarding "confession"? What is the doctrine of the WT and JW Organization regarding "confession"?
      The Catholic Church allows their priests to listen to the voluntary confessions of their believers and to give them comfort and forgiveness in the name of God as part of Christian mercy. Priests must never reveal to anyone the confession secrets they have heard from believers.
      The WT JW organization teaching that the believers of their religion should also confess their sins to their "priests", who are the elders. Although in the formal every day language, words "confession of sin" are viewed in different way, different picture than it is in Catholic church, it can be said that it is formally the similar idea as in the Catholic Church. Awareness of one's sin may come to elders in two ways: as a voluntary confession of one's sins before one or more elders or when a member of the Assembly declared the sin of another member of the organization.
      There are two outcomes for a JW believer after the elders find out about a sin. He will either be allowed to remain as full member of the assembly, or be expelled/dfd from the organization.
      What does that tell us? Although the WT JW organization claims that it is incorrect and unbiblical when a Catholic priest forgives sins to a Catholic believer, we are free to observe that in their treating, JW elders towards their member, they act in the same way as a Catholic priest. By allowing JW sinner to remain to be a member of the congregation, they, as the Judges of the JW Church, forgave him. They forgave him on their's behalf, on behalf of the injured party, and on behalf of the assembly. In the event that they had excluded sinners, it would mean that no one had forgiven him. This kind of treatment denies the allegations regarding the Catholic Church about who have right to "forgive sins".
      Certain Bible passages teaching assembly members to be prepared to forgive the sins of other members. This actually means that there is a basis on which one sinner can forgive sins of a another sinner. If so, then it means that some sin can be forgiven, not just by the directly injured party, but by any other member of the congregation. Every member can, if he wants and wish, but he is not forced if he does not want to.
      But in the Catholic Church, a believer who has the burden of sin and wants to confess it in his church, goes to only one priest, not two or three, and confesses his sin only to him. In this case, sin is confessed to only one person. And that forms the basis for the "secret" in the Catholic Church. Because the secret is revealed to only one person.
      In the JW congregation, "confession of sin" gets another level of "secrecy." The secret does not remain verbally spoken between two people, but the "secret" extends to 3 or 4 people, maybe more. However, it is very important to note that the "confession" is also documented in writing. According to what i know, a Catholic priest does not making (mandatory) written record for the sins of his believers. JW elders, by contrast, must make a "confidential file" kept in the archives and / or destroyed if it would be said so by the authority of the higher hierarchy body.
       
      It is unacceptable that the WT JW organization invokes the Catholic Church and their "penitent privilege", or "confessional secrets" between believers and chaplains (soul carrier, shepherd), as the basis by which it operates within its own organization and regulates the spiritual life of believers in the JW Church.
      The "confessional secret" in the Catholic Church  and "confession of sin" before the elders in the JW assembly are two things.
       
    • By Srecko Sostar
      JW members are instructed by this GB member to trust their leaders aka Governing Body. On other side Bible has many verses that warning people about that issue. Well, it seems how human influence and even manipulation is on work. Just few Bible verses as evidence: 
       My dear brothers, do not trust every spirit. But test the spirits to see if they belong to God. - 1 John
      Do not rely on a friend; do not trust in a companion. Seal the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms - Micah 7
      Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. - Psalm 146
      For your own sakes, quit trusting in mere man,Who is only the breath in his nostrils.*Why should he be taken into account? - Isaiah 2
       
       
    • By Srecko Sostar
      TEACHING BOX 16A - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102017945
      Is Christendom the Antitypical Jerusalem?
      In the past, our literature has referred to Christendom as the antitype of apostate Jerusalem. The conditions in unfaithful Jerusalem—including idolatry and widespread corruption—certainly remind us of what is happening in Christendom. However, in recent years our publications, including the one you are now reading, have not taken the type-antitype approach to prophecy except where the Bible provides a clear basis for doing so. Is there a solid Scriptural basis for referring to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem? No.
      Consider the following: Jerusalem was at one time a center of pure worship; later, its inhabitants turned apostate. By contrast, Christendom has never practiced pure worship. Right from its inception in the fourth century C.E., Christendom has always taught false doctrine.
      In addition, after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, Jehovah restored the city to his favor and it again became the center of true worship. Christendom, on the other hand, has never had God’s favor, and once it is destroyed during the great tribulation, it will never rise again.
      In view of the foregoing, what may we conclude? When we examine Bible prophecies that were fulfilled on unfaithful Jerusalem, we may say, ‘This or that reminds us of what we see in Christendom today.’ But there appears to be no Scriptural basis for referring to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem.
       
      First, perhaps is about Lexicon, Vocabulary  in JW Culture. When JW Church and members talking about "Christendom" they refer firstly or mostly to Roman Catholic Church and all Churches and Denominations that believe In Jesus Christ...but in wrong, false and idolatrous way. But JW consider themselves to be Christians too, but not part of "Christendom" (by this they quote can be consider as Christendom.  "....we are Christians who do our best to follow the example set by Jesus Christ and to live by his teachings." -https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-a-cult/
      Why this linguistic distinction is so important to JW? To be, sometimes, called with name "Christians" but want to run miles away from word "Christendom"?
      Christendom - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christendom
       noun - English Language Learners Definition of Christendom
      : people who are Christians
      : the part of the world where most people are Christians
      But another thing is of bigger importance. Do you remember how many articles and books and magazines taught you all, over such long period of decades, on so many meetings and congregations baked up with so many Bible verses and Study paragraphs about who is Jerusalem and who is Christendom and all that stuff??!!
      And now they figured up, they rowed deep, Under Spirit Motivation and Guidance, to tell you how Now there is No Single One Solid Scriptural Basis to believe in that teaching, doctrine, dogma! 
      Do You really believe how Church Leaders and Guardians of Doctrine in WTJWORG know what they are talking about , as those who watch for your souls?! 
        
    • By Srecko Sostar
      Many people wish, want to know what is, how looks Context about some issue. That is because of reason to be able to understand more and better some issue, and if they have to make some decision about to be sure they will make good choice.  
      Here is example how WT "scribes" manipulates with Context !!!!!! 
      Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 89, Cross; The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux(from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.   Text in red color is missing text in Reasoning book. Very important CONTEXT. Oh, context always problem with you:))) _____________________________________________________ The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole and this always reminded the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment a transverse piece of wood was commonly added; not, however, always even than.....  The following text continues, describing the types of crosses and the ways in which the convicts were murdered...,others extending their arms on a patibulum. There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more common and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood. But this does not itself determine the precise form of the cross; ....  the text continues to describe 3 types of crosses.—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.   Please, if you know some more examples about similar "intellectual dishonest" give example   
    • By Srecko Sostar
      Just one of many changes WT made in recent years. 
      19 In review, what have we learned? In the beginning of this article, we raised three “when” questions. We first considered that the great tribulation did not begin in 1914 but will start when the United Nations attacks Babylon the Great. Then, we reviewed why Jesus’ judgment of the sheep and the goats did not begin in 1914 but will occur during the great tribulation. Finally, we examined why Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919 but will take place during the great tribulation. So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.
      source of paragraph: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013530
       
      Here in this paragraph we see just some of many changes from past teachings in Watchtower ideology.
      Well, questions are as follow:
      What is The Truth?
      Can The Truth Stop To Be True?
      Does The Truth have the Owner?
      Why do some people like to claim that Only They know a Certain Truth?
      Does some Truth exists outside of our awareness of the existence of such truth?
      Why do we argue how some Truth or Truths can never change?
      Why can not we name The Truth, which has ceased to be true, that it is a Lie or at least Not The Truth?
      Do these truths from paragraph 19 cease to be true on the day of publication in the Watchtower Journal on July 15 2013 or are they, in fact, have never been The Truth?
       
  • Forum Statistics

    61,673
    Total Topics
    114,461
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,505
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Leander H. McNelly
    Newest Member
    Leander H. McNelly
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.